Opinion
April 20, 1998
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.)
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see, Matter of Paul N., 244 A.D.2d 488; cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the charged acts. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see, Matter of Joan P., 245 A.D.2d 381; cf., People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see, Matter of Joan P., supra; cf., People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the determination was not against the weight of the evidence ( cf., CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, his right to a speedy trial ( see, Family Ct. Act § 340.1 Fam. Ct. Act [2]) was not violated. The appellant waived his right to challenge the first adjournment past the 60-day speedy-trial period because he consented to the adjournment ( see, Matter of Irene B., 244 A.D.2d 226) and successive adjournments were warranted by special circumstances evident on the face of the record ( see, Matter of Jamar A., 86 N.Y.2d 387).
Ritter, J.P., Sullivan, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.